The Public Opinion Soapbox

Torgo · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:38 am Post subject:

Probably no more than you acknowledge your own...
_________________
"The Master would not approve..."

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 490

munchkin · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 235

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2267 Location: Chambersburg

I know he didn't; there's no possible way anyone could have watched that entire speech and feel this way. Or maybe there is, i don't know. I just keep hearing the same thing over and over.

Again, for once, I appreciate being spoken to like an intelligent adult for once by a politician, especially one confronted with a situation like this one.

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 490

i know he didn't either, he doesn't hear what obama says, just what rush tells him obama says.

edited to add, heck he doesn't even bother to listen to or read the speech let alone hear it.

munchkin · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 235

Torgo · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:51 am Post subject:

munchkin · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 235

Torgo · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:55 am Post subject:

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2267 Location: Chambersburg

No one is attacking anyone with any race card except for you and your pundits, munchkin

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2267 Location: Chambersburg

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 490

charm38 · Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Posts: 1

Senator Obama and Infanticide

12:35pm Today
From what I have read from the publications concerning the legislation in question, this is the position I believe Senator Obama has taken on this issue.

Senator Obama's contention concerning the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was that he wanted to maintain the rights articulated within the Supreme Courts ratio of Roe v Wade. Yet Infanticide and providing medical treatment for born babies bares no correlation with women's rights. These babies were products of botched abortions and therefore providing medical treatment, in no way, shape or form infringed upon a woman's right to choose. Indeed, the birth of the baby ensured that the process had moved on from the choice of whether to have an abortion or not. What is crucial is that there is no correlation between the Born Alive Infant Protection Act which should have been signed into law, and Obama's contention of limiting abortion.

Being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms is infanticide. Introducing this legislation at a federal level would have enabled these fetus' to have constitutionally protected rights to equal protection, whether or not they were desired or wanted. Senator's Clinton, Kerry recognized that a woman's right to choose stops at delivery. Logically, and legally this is correct. The State already has an overwhelming interest through the Supreme Courts rulings at viability - clearly once delivered, the baby has locus standi. There is no maternal-fetal conflict because the fetus is no longer in Utero and therefore has legal personhood. Other stances taken were for instance that NARAL went neutral on the issue, and abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting this Bill would appear extreme.

In Illinois however, Senate Obama ensured that the Bill repeatedly failed. Since he left the Senate in 2005 it has been passed into law at the Federal Level providing equal treatment for unborn babies.

Equal rights ensure medical treatment rights. This is the importance of the law.

Senator Obama didn't merely stop at voting against the Bill. He went much further. As chairman of the Senate hearing committee to which the Bill was sent, Obama stopped it from getting a hearing. Babies were still be shelved at this point and were dying as a consequence of this treatment.

So not supporting the Bill using the issue of Abortion must be clarified by Obama - how does banning infanticide interfere with abortion? From what I can decipher, the Bill was sponsored by a pro life advocate and yet the provisions legally speaking, did not have as their motivation the prohibition of abortion in any format. A maternal-fetal conflict approach is irrelevant, because the mother and the fetus are physically separated - by contending that medical treatment cannot be given to the foetus because this would inviolate the pregnant woman's right to autonomy and self determination is non applicable.

By allowing equal protection rights for the fetus, this does not infringe upon her rights when pregnant, it is logically allowing the baby to live without being killed subsequent to birth. The same language was used in the Illinois draft version at federal level, as was used at State level. Therefore the principle and purpose behind the legislation was exactly the same. I am perhaps in the middle of pro choice and pro life. I believe there should be great ethical respect for both the woman and the fetus and striking this balance is a task which the law (considering forced Cesarean cases for instance) has failed to achieve in the past. Nonetheless this Bill was designed for the prime purpose of providing a fundamental right to born babies - who now have legal rights. It was to ensure that the sanctity of life remains an ethical and legal principle that is maintained, but yet managed to skillfully refrain from infringing the woman's rights as an autonomous agent. The rights would not be conferred upon the fetus until it was born - therefore avoiding any conflict of interest in utero.

I believe the right to life is something we should continue to invoke - clearly whether this should be at the expense of the pregnant woman's autonomy is contentious. Yet voters must be made aware that the purpose of the Bill, was not designed and would not therefore have achieved a curbing of the right to chose. It protected the right to life, whether or not the baby was desired. By refraining to enact this, Senator Obama effectively voted for infanticide. Medical treatment and the protection of human life once a baby is born should not be sacrificed.

I believe the right to life is something we should continue to invoke - clearly whether this should be at the expense of the pregnant woman's autonomy is contentious. Yet voters must be made aware that the purpose of the Bill, was not designed and would not therefore have achieved
a curbing of the right to chose. It protected the right to life, whether or not the baby was desired. By refraining to enact this, Senator Obama effectively voted for infanticide. Medical treatment and the protection of human life once a baby is born should not be sacrificed.

I am sure many of those that attend your church would benefit from this insight. Informed voting should be the key in this election. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11799

Thank you for your time, and may God continue to bless you.

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 490

so munchkin has spent the last 2 weeks trying to read the speech on race? maybe someone should sound out the words

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 2758 Location: Chambersburg

Now that's not nice.
As much as munchkin posts in here and on Topix, I'm sure he can read

But if there are problems, the Merriam-Webster site provides definitions and pronunciations. (as in audio) Cool

_________________
I demand euphoria!